tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72066343515509712782017-07-19T06:15:59.951-07:00The National Adoption and Surrogacy CenterInformative and educational blog that helps give advice to those considering adoption and surrogacy, and support for those who are going through the process or have gone through the process.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-9869620551761861892010-08-21T12:10:00.000-07:002010-08-21T12:11:19.417-07:00Surrogacy in China<strong>Surrogate sweep comes up empty </strong><br /><br />Alerted by a report in a local Chinese newspaper, the Hongkou District Health Bureau swooped into an office building on Tianbo Road in Shanghai yesterday, looking for evidence of a secret business in surrogate mothering. <br /><br />Officials found no sign of any illegal practice in the raid on the 10th-floor office. But they said they would continue to investigate the company, whose alleged activities were described by the Shanghai Evening Post.<br /><br />Surrogates are women who are not genetically related to the babies they carry. They make an arrangement with clients who can not go through a pregnancy, or choose not to.<br /><br />Commercial surrogacy is banned in China, but goes on through underground agencies. There are no firm statistics on how many surrogate cases are arranged in Shanghai.<br /><br />Many such agencies advertise online. Shanghai Daily yesterday called one company in Beijing and was told it is an agency working with hospitals in the central city of Wuhan. It said its surrogacy business, started in 1994, has produced more than 3,000 births.<br /><br />The Shanghai Evening Post visited the Tianbo Road company on Wednesday and said it used a trading company name as cover.<br /><br />A woman surnamed Lai, described as being in charge of the agency, told the newspaper on the phone that success can be guaranteed in most cases, adding the agency "has good reputation after years in service."<br /><br />The cost is about 500,000 yuan (US$73,650) including medical procedures, payment to the surrogate mother and agency fares, the newspaper said.<br /><br />The newspaper saw two couples visit the company for consultation within 15 minutes.<br /><br />According to the company's introduction materials, its business is centered in Shanghai and Wuhan.<br /><br />"For those clients whose age below 35 years old, the surgery costs 60,000 yuan," said the material. "The cost will be raised by 10,000 yuan each time the client is one year older."<br /><br />During the newspaper's investigation, a woman who identified herself as a surrogate mother showed up to talk to the company.<br /><br />Calling herself "a volunteer," the woman, 30, said she was very poor back in her hometown in central China's Henan Province. She said she needs the money.<br /><br />"I can not even pay formula milk for my own baby," said the woman.<br /><br />She said she had successfully given birth to a baby for a couple, earning 150,000 yuan.<br /><br />During her pregnancy, the woman said, the couple visited her and brought nourishment products.<br /><br />"I am not worried that I would have affections with the baby I helped to bear," said the woman. "What would make me depressed is that the clients suddenly decide not to want the baby." <br /><br />The surrogate mother might not get paid if the clients back out.<br /><br />Local health officials said surrogacy is an area fraught with ethical and legal concerns. "Any professional facilities or staff involved in it will face penalties and even imprisonment," said Song Guofan, an official from Shanghai Health Bureau.<br /><br />Song warned residents to avoid surrogacy, noting that any parties having a dispute with the service can hardly be protected by laws.<br /><br />Source:Shanghai DailyThe National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-17171382269508544652010-07-17T04:04:00.000-07:002010-07-17T04:05:43.765-07:00Surrogate Mothers win Insurance Battle!<strong>Surrogate Mothers Win Insurance Battle In Court</strong><br />Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Friday<br /><br /><br />Text SizeAAAMADISON, Wis. -- Surrogate mothers have won a fight over insurance benefits in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.<br /><br />The court unanimously ruled Friday that insurance companies may not refuse to pay maternity costs to surrogate mothers.<br /><br />The case involves a dispute between MercyCare HMO of Janesville and two surrogate mothers denied coverage by the company during their pregnancies.<br /><br />The company had a policy of covering pregnant women, but excluding surrogate mothers who act as "gestational carriers" for others' babies.<br /><br />The Supreme Court said insurance companies may not make routine maternity services unavailable to surrogate mothers based solely on the reasons or methods of becoming pregnant.<br /><br />The decision overturns a lower court's ruling in favor of the HMO.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-32582393283903421332010-05-28T12:18:00.001-07:002010-05-28T12:18:51.468-07:00Surrogacy: Mitzvah or Money Maker?<strong>Surrogacy: Mitzvah or Money Maker</strong>?<br /><br />Israeli anthropologist studies the issue and controversies surrounding it<br />May 27, 2010 - Daphna Berman, Jewish Exponent Feature<br /><br /> <br />What motivates a surrogate mother to carry a baby that is not genetically related to her through nine months of pregnancy, only to give the child up just moments after it's born? <br /><br />Elly Teman, an Israeli anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has been researching this question -- and other issues relating to surrogacy -- for the past decade. In her recently published Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self, Teman explores the cultural assumptions about surrogacy, debunking some along the way, as well as misunderstandings that surround the controversial process. <br /><br />"There is a common belief that surrogate mothers bond with the baby they carry, and later decide to keep it," she said in a recent interview. "The truth is that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of cases end up in court. Surrogates don't bond with the babies. They bond with the women -- the women they are making into mothers." <br /><br />Teman's research focused on Israel, one of the few countries where surrogacy is legal and also tightly regulated. Unlike in the United States, where surrogacy is legal only in select states, close distances between the surrogate and the intended mother in Israel meant that the women were constantly interacting. <br /><br />Teman followed these women as they embarked on an exciting and emotionally charged journey that transformed them from strangers to something much more complicated. <br /><br />"In the U.S., the surrogate could be in Oregon and the intended parents could be in New York, so most of the communication is done through e-mail and the phone," she said. "But in Israel, the intended mother sees the surrogate's belly growing, and she goes with her to ultrasound appointments. The Israeli version is intensified because they see each other so often." <br />Elly Teman <br /><br />In Israel, some of the intended mothers even started to develop symptoms of pregnancy -- rashes, bloating, weight gain -- because they were so close to the women who were carrying their genetic child. <br /><br />"People would say that the intended mothers were glowing," Teman said, "and for them, feeling 'a little pregnant' meant a lot." <br /><br />The costs of surrogacy are prohibitive for many couples in the United States, often running upwards of $100,000, which includes the cost of in-vitro fertilization. In Israel, where IVF is covered by the state, the cost is about half. <br /><br />Surrogacy has been legal in Israel since 1996; the first baby born to a surrogate mother came two years later. The bill to legalize it passed through the Knesset in record time, and as a result, Israeli law is very strict in regulating the process. <br /><br />Criteria for the surrogate, as well as the intended couple, are determined by a state committee. <br /><br />And the committee is strict: a woman must be married to be eligible, and she needs to have gone though at least seven failed IVF attempts or have other medical problems to prove her infertility. <br /><br />The United States, however, has no such legal safety net. Surrogacy in New York is illegal, but in Pennsylvania, for example, it is not expressly prohibited, which means that women often cross state boundaries to contract surrogates. <br /><br />California, meanwhile, is a "mecca" for surrogacy, Teman said, though it isn't regulated at all. The result is that couples from around the United States, as well as countries throughout Europe and Japan, often travel there to contract a surrogate mother, but individual agencies -- rather than the states themselves -- are then responsible for screening. <br /><br />Also, "there is no back up in court. No one knows what will happen in a court of law if the surrogate wants to keep the baby," she said. <br /><br />Money and the Mitzvah <br /><br />Teman, who was born in New York and raised in Portland, Ore., immigrated to Israel with her family at age 12. She studied at the Hebrew University and became interested in the issue of surrogacy after meeting a woman who was born with ovaries, but no uterus, and was looking into options. <br /><br />Teman also said that her research -- which was conducted between the years 1998 and 2006 -- was made possible because of Israel's liberal approach to the issue. The state's Jewish character, she noted, caused it to go "very far" in legislating surrogacy. <br /><br />"Surrogates are doing it for the money and for the mitzvah," she said. "These two don't contradict each other, and they don't take away from each other. That's sometimes hard for people to digest. <br /><br />"People think that if there's money involved, then it's a business transaction, and if there is no money, then it's a mitzvah. But the surrogate gives more than money can buyThe National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-4670234996857595752010-05-28T12:13:00.000-07:002010-05-28T12:14:58.327-07:00Surrogacy in India: not an option for gay and lesbian couplesNEW DELHI: Gay and lesbian couples, Indian or foreign, can't have children born with the help of an Indian surrogate mother. <br /><br />According to the draft `Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Bill 2010' prepared by a 12-member committee headed by Dr P M Bhargava under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which was submitted to the health ministry recently, till gay and lesbian relationships are legalised in India, gay couples would not be allowed to have children through a surrogate. <br /><br />Ministry officials told TOI that India was seeing a growing number of male couples from foreign countries hiring surrogates to bear children. This is mainly because assisted reproductive technology (ART) is not regulated here at present. <br /><br />"However, once this bill is endorsed by the law ministry and becomes an Act, such couples will not be allowed to have surrogate children in India," said member secretary of the committee Dr R S Sharma. <br /><br />According to Dr Sharma, under present laws, the definition of a couple is "persons living together and having a sexual relation that is legal in India". <br /><br />"But though homosexuality has been decriminalised in India, it has not been made legal. Till gay and lesbian couples get legal status in India, they can't avail surrogacy," Dr Sharma said. <br /><br />Some time back, a gay Israeli was prevented by a Jerusalem judge from taking his twins, born with the help of a surrogate mother in Mumbai, back to his home town. <br /><br />The draft bill also says that foreigners or NRIs coming to India to rent a womb will have to submit two documents -- one confirming that their country of residence recognises surrogacy as legal and second that it will give citizenship to the child born through the agreement from an Indian mother. <br /><br />As reported by TOI earlier, the draft bill also includes a provision which says that foreign couple will have to identify a local guardian in India to take care of the surrogate mother during her gestation period as well as after the delivery, till the child is handed over to the commissioning parents. However, if the foreign parents fail to take delivery of the child born to the surrogate mother within one month of the child's birth, the surrogate mother and the local guardian will be legally obliged to hand over the child to an adoption agency. <br /><br />Only in such a case will the baby get an Indian citizenship, says the bill. <br /><br />So what makes India an attractive destination for surrogacy? Experts cite two reasons. In the US, surrogacy costs up to $120,000 while in India, couples pay only a fourth or so of that amount. Having a child could cost anything between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 25 lakh here. The second reason is lack of regulation of the ART sector making India an easy place to have a surrogate baby. <br /><br />The Law Commission, however, strongly pitched for legalising surrogacy in India last year and recommended several steps to protect the interests of the surrogate mother and also the baby. <br /><br />In its 228th report submitted to law minister Veerappa Moily, the commission recommended banning of sex-selective surrogacy, financial support for surrogate child in the event of death of commissioning parents or unwillingness to take the child later and providing life insurance cover for surrogate mother.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-13036546427293713122010-05-26T06:43:00.000-07:002010-05-26T06:44:34.679-07:00Surrogate Twins in India finally get to head home to Germany!<strong>Twins head for Germany, apex court seeks law on surrogacy </strong><br /><br /><br />New Delhi: As the last hurdle was cleared Wednesday in the travel of surrogate twins to Germany with their natural father Jan Balaz, the Supreme Court said the central government should enact a legislation to take care of surrogacy and related issues. <br /><br />A vacation bench headed by Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad said that no surrogate child should undergo the difficulties faced by Nicolas and Leonard. <br /><br /><br />Justice Singhvi said: 'We can only wish good luck to them.' <br /><br /><br /><br />The travel was cleared after Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam informed the court that the ministry of external affairs had already issued the 'exit permit' for the twins, born in 2008 to a Gujarati surrogate mother from Anand. <br /><br />The twins have been in India since their birth due to immigration problems. <br /><br />Solicitor General Subramaniam told the Court that even before it (the court) expressed its concern over the absence of statutory backing to surrogacy, he had impressed upon the government to enact such a law. The court which would go into the legal dimensions of the case then adjourned it till October 2010. <br /><br /><br />However, the surrogate twins have to cross yet another obstacle of acquiring German citizenship. Jan Balaz would move the German Court for acquiring German citizenship for his children. The big hiccup in the final lap is that the German government does not recognize surrogacy as a means of parenthood. Surrogacy is illegal in Germany. <br /><br /><br />It was on this count alone that the hearing into the matter was prolonged in the apex court because of the apprehension that after leaving India the twins may become stateless. <br /><br /><br />The case, which took many twists and turns, eventually saw the central government issuing identification papers to the twins and the German government issuing visa.<br /> <br />Surrogate mother abandons child in hospital<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />However, before boarding the plane to Germany which they, according to Jan Balaz, might take tonight itself, the twins needed 'exit permit' from the ministry of external affairs. <br /><br /><br />On this score, the hearing into the matter in the morning was adjourned till 2 p.m. and the solicitor general was asked to state the position of the centre government on the 'exit permit'. Soon after the court assembled after lunch break, Subramaniam informed the court that the 'exit permit' had already been issued and was with the court registry.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-42076933048068503132010-05-23T09:15:00.000-07:002010-05-23T09:16:58.715-07:00Vietnam Lacks Sperm Donors<strong>Vietnam’s sperm banks lack “capital”</strong><br /><br />VietNamNet Bridge – In Vietnam, around 5-10 percent of infertility cases are caused by problems with men’s sperm count. The need for donors at sperm banks is high, but men are not eager to donate their semen.<br /><br /><br />A couple in Hanoi’s Gia Lam district has been married for six years, but they have no children yet. Doctors report that the husband is unable to produce sperm, so the couple has turned to in-vitro fertilization. Since the hospital has limited sperm donations, they asked the couple to find a sperm donor in exchange for the service. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Doctor Vu Minh Ngoc from the Hanoi Obstetrics Hospital explained that many couples are unable to find sperm donors and that hospitals face the same trouble. The hospital’s sperm bank is almost empty.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Physicians note that men don’t want to donate sperm because the collecting process and regulations are complicated. Sperm donors in Vietnam must be less than 40 years old and healthy, so physicians must perform many tests to determine that the donors don’t have sexually transmitted diseases, hepatitis B, HIV, etc. The donors also have to return to the hospital three months later to complete a second round of tests. After that, if the results are all fine, the hospitals can then collect their semen.<br /><br />Dr. Ngoc still remembers one man who went to the Hanoi Obstetrics Hospital to donate sperm several years ago. “The first tests were okay. We collected three samples of sperm and made a second appointment for three months later. If the second tests were all good, then the sperm samples could be used. The man never came back,” Ngoc recalled.<br /><br />People also worry that if they donate, terrible mix-ups may happen, such as their children may get married by coincidence.<br /><br />Dr. Ngoc observed that sperm donation and use of donations is based on a privacy rule that the donors and the recipients don’t know each other. The donors also give up the right to find out any information about recipients. <br /><br />Patients who wish to receive donations from sperm banks must seek donors for the hospitals so that the supply remains steady. In return, they can receive sperm from a previous donor. <br /><br /><br />Hospitals collect three samples of sperm from each donor. If one sample is used and a recipient becomes pregnant, the two other samples will be destroyed.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-32818555635385472992010-05-23T09:06:00.000-07:002010-05-23T09:08:23.546-07:00Surrogacy Bill in India looks to protect childrenSurrogacy bill looks to protect child's interest<br />Manoj Mitta, TNN, May 23, 2010, 05.22am IST<br /><br /><br />NEW DELHI: Having emerged as the hottest destination for surrogacy, it is but natural for India to take the lead in evolving a law that safeguards the interests of all the parties concerned, including the child born through assisted reproductive technology (ART). <br /><br />There is no precedent to the proposal under consideration that foreigners or NRIs seeking to rent a womb in India be made to give evidence that their country of residence recognized surrogacy and would give citizenship to a child born through agreement. <br /><br />Both conditions are reasonable as they are designed to deal with the legal uncertainties thrown up by a couple of surrogacy cases that did not pan out in the agreed manner. In the Manji Yamada case, the baby was embroiled in litigation as the commissioning Japanese parents had divorced by the time it was born in India. <br /><br />And in the subsequent case involving German parents, the twins found themselves in a no-man's-land as their country did not recognize surrogacy as a means of parenthood. <br /><br />The bill drafted by an ICMR expert committee is in keeping with the recommendations made by the Law Commission in August 2009. <br /><br />There is no way the surrogacy agreements will be enforceable unless the commissioning parents are in a position to take the child back to their country and it is accorded citizenship, which it would have automatically received had it been born to them in the natural course. <br /><br />Correspondingly, the proposed law will recognise the surrogate child as the legitimate child of the commissioning parents, without there being any need for adoption or even declaration of guardianship. Such an enabling provision cannot however be enforced unilaterally. So, the government cannot just go by the word of the commissioning parents. The safeguards of the child's interests need to have official imprimatur in the form of certificates from the foreign government concerned. <br /><br />As a corollary, the legislation also provides that the birth certificate of the surrogate child given by the Indian government will have names of only the commissioning parents. In a bid to prevent abuse of the child, the government is also considering provisions stipulating that at least one of the commissioning parents needs to be a donor of the sperm or the egg. This is based on the assumption that a biological link between the commissioning parents and the surrogate child would reduce chances of abuse. <br />Under the scheme of the proposed law, surrogacy cannot be misused for sex selection and it will be governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to prevent unauthorized abortions. <br /><br />It also seeks to provide a measure of privacy to the commissioning and surrogate parents.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-25091954093395415672010-05-22T12:09:00.000-07:002010-05-22T12:11:04.720-07:00Three Taiwanese Men under Investigation of Importing Surrogates from Uzbekistan<strong>Taipei, May 20 (CNA) Three Taiwanese men are under investigation by police on suspicion of importing women from Uzbekistan specifically for childbearing purposes.</strong><br /><br />The three men -- a doctor, a businessman and a pharmacist identified only by their last names Kuo, Shao and Lien, respectively -- are believed to have brought four Uzbek women to Taiwan since 2007 to serve as surrogate mothers.<br /><br />According to the police, two of the women had three children with Kuo, one woman had one child fathered by Shao, and the other woman left Taiwan without having any children. Three of women have already left the country, the police said.<br /><br />Shao, who operates a factory in Uzbekistan, is married to a Uzbek woman and they have one child, the police said.<br /><br />Shao claimed that his wife was unable to have any more children and admitted to bringing a Uzbek woman to Taiwan in 2007 at cost of US$30,000 to serve as a surrogate mother, according to the police.<br /><br />The woman came to Taiwan under the pretext of studying Chinese and was impregnated with Shao's sperm through artificial insemination, the police said. She was paid US$1,000 for each month of her stay in Taiwan and she left in August 2008 after giving birth to a baby boy who was later adopted by Shao, the police said.<br /><br />According to the police, Shao's wife was kept in dark about the whole process.<br /><br />Surrogate parenting is not allowed in Taiwan and doctors who knowingly perform artificial insemination prodecures for such a purpose could have their licenses suspended.<br /><br />Kuo, a doctor who worked at a clinic owned by Shao and located in Cidu, Keelung City, was quite taken with Shao's two blonde children was eager to have one of his own, the police said.<br /><br />However, since Kuo was in the process of divorcing his wife at the time, he hatched a plan for Lien -- a friend and colleagues of his and Shao's -- to engage in a fake marriage with a Uzbek woman and bring her to Taiwan, the police said.<br /><br />According to the police, the woman bore Kuo a baby girl in February 2008 through artificial insemination and has since remained in Taiwan and assumed the family name of Kuo.<br /><br />Using a similar ploy, the doctor impregnated another foreign woman and brought her to Taiwan, supposedly to study Chinese, the police said, adding that in March 2010 she gave birth to twin boys.<br /><br />Before that, in March 2009 Shao had brought in another Uzbek woman to have a child for him but during a routine check at the artificial insemination clinic the woman was found be HIV positive and the clinic alerted the Keelung City Health Office, the police said.<br /><br />In a bid to foil the system, Shao asked the Uzbek woman surnamed Kuo to pose as the other woman and to request another HIV test, this time at a Taipei City clinic, the police said.<br /><br />When the test came up negative, the police said, the discrepancy in the two results was brought to the attention of the health authorities who began to look into the case and found that the blood samples had come from two different persons.<br /><br />The woman who was found to be HIV positive left the country before health officials could track down her and the whole scheme was exposed, according to the police.<br /><br />All the other people believed to be involved in the case were taken by police to the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office Wednesday for questioning.<br /><br />Kuo, Shao and Lien were released on bail, while the Uzbek woman surnamed Kuo was taken to an immigrant shelter as Lien had thrown her out after the scheme was exposed, the police said.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-85965974192536271762010-05-22T12:07:00.000-07:002010-05-22T12:08:54.839-07:00The Catholic Church's view on IVF, Donor Egg, and Surrogacy<strong>Questionable Practices </strong><br /><br />http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=29274<br /><br />By Father John Flynn, L.C. ROME, MAY 16, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Catholic Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization (IVF) is well-known, but recently some of these practices are being questioned even by secular observers.<br /><br />A May 10 article published by the New York Times looked at the topic of paying women to produce eggs for other couples. It cited a recent issue of a bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, which found that payment to young women is often above industry guidelines.<br /><br />The study, by Aaron Levine, an assistant professor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, found that a quarter of 100 egg ads in college newspapers offered more than the $10,000 limit of the voluntary ceiling established by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.<br /><br />Higher payments were offered for women at prestigious colleges and for those who had above average academic results.<br /><br />According to the New York Times almost 10,000 children were born through donor eggs in 2006, around double the number in 2000.<br /><br />The article also referred to concerns over the health risks for donors, particularly as young women may not be aware of the serious nature of some of these side effects.<br /><br />The health risks were explained in an article published March 3 by LifeNews.com. In the piece Jennifer Lahl, president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, urged women to rethink any plans they have to donate their eggs.<br /><br />Risks<br /><br />Possible risks include stroke, organ failure, infection, cancer, and loss of future fertility, Lahl warned.<br /><br />She also argued that egg donation is not similar to organ donation. In the latter a donor takes risks in order to save a sick or dying person. By contrast the recipient of an egg donation is not sick, but a consumer purchasing a product.<br /><br />"Society rightfully condemns the selling or payment for organs in order to prevent abuses and save lives, whereas the large sums of monetary compensation to women egg donors causes them to be exploited by their need for money," said Lahl.<br /><br />It's not just college women who are being urged to sell their eggs.<br /><br />Last year at a fertility conference Professor Naomi Pfeffer warned that women in poor countries are being exploited in a sort of prostitution by Westerners who are desperate for children, reported the Times newspaper, Sept 19.<br /><br />"The exchange relationship is analogous to that of a client and a prostitute," she said. "It's a unique situation because it's the only instance in which a woman exploits another woman's body," Pfeffer commented.<br /><br />Surrogates<br /><br />Another practice that is being criticized is that of surrogate mothers. India is a popular destination for Western couples looking for women to bear their children. One reason it is favored is the lack of laws governing the procedure, something highlighted in an article the Times of India newspaper published May 11.<br /><br />The article recounted how for the third time in the last year-and-a-half children born to Indian surrogate mothers faced obstacles in being legally recognized by countries of their genetic parents.<br /><br />Previous cases involved a baby for a Japanese couple, which took six months to resolve, and then a German couple that had to wait months for citizenship of their baby born to an Indian woman. The latest case is that of an Israeli homosexual couple that is seeking citizenship for their two-month-old child.<br /><br />The article cited experts who said that such problems would not occur if a draft law that has been debated during the last five years were made law.<br /><br />The situation of Indian surrogate mothers was examined at length in a Sunday Times article published May 9. It looked at the Akanksha Infertility Clinic in the town of Anand, run by Doctor Navana Patel and her husband, Hitesh. Since 2003, 167 women have given birth to 216 babies at this clinic, with another 50 surrogate women currently pregnant.<br /><br />Couples pay over 14,000 pounds ($20,682), of which about a third goes to the surrogate. The women are generally of lower caste and come from poor villages. The amount they receive is equivalent to about ten years' salary, according to the Sunday Times.<br /><br />The article also explained that at the clinic in Anand once the surrogates are pregnant they must live in "confinement homes" and can only leave for medical check-ups. Their husbands and children are allowed to visit them on Sundays. The Sunday Times chronicled the anguish the women feel at being separated from their own children and the emotional wrench they face when they have to hand over their surrogate child.<br /><br />An April 26 article published by the Toronto Star newspaper raised questions about the situation in India. In one case a Canadian couple paid a woman in India to be a surrogate, but when Canadian officials ordered DNA tests on the resulting twins it turned out that instead of the fertilized eggs of the couple the children born were from another unknown couple. The twins will now probably be sent to an orphanage.<br /><br />Legal problems<br /><br />Apart from concerns about the exploitation of women the spread of surrogacy is causing complicated legal problems. The Wall Street Journal had a look at some of the issues involved in a Jan. 15 report.<br /><br />In America eight states have passed laws prohibiting some or all surrogacy arrangements. Courts in some states have refused to enforce such contracts, while ten states have passed laws authorizing surrogacy.<br /><br />Some of the disputes involve disagreements over the rights of the surrogate mother, the Wall Street Journal explained. In a decision last December New Jersey state judge Francis Schultz ruled that, in spite of a signed agreement relinquishing her parental rights, Angelia Robinson has parental rights for a baby she bore for a homosexual couple, Donald Robinson Hollingsworth and Sean Hollingsworth. Robinson is Donald Hollingsworth's sister.<br /><br />Another twist to complicate matters came shortly after, in a Jan. 26 article by the New York Times that posed the question as to whether a baby can have three biological parents.<br /><br />Recent experiments by scientists have led to baby monkeys with a father and two mothers, by combining genetic material from the eggs of two females. If this were done for humans it would further complicate surrogacy disputes, the article affirmed.<br /><br />Life and love<br /><br />The use of surrogate mothers and third parties in IVF was one of the issues dealt with in a document published last November by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.<br /><br />In "Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology," the bishops sympathized with couples who suffer due to fertility problems, but they stated that not all solutions respect the dignity of the couple's marital relationship. The end does not justify the means, and some reproductive technologies are not morally legitimate, they affirmed.<br /><br />The temptation to have a child produced or made, as products of technology, should be resisted, the document urged. "Then children themselves may come to be seen as products of our technology, even as consumer goods that parents have paid for and have a "right" to expect -- and not as fellow persons, equal in dignity to their parents and destined to eternal happiness with God," it pointed out.<br /><br />Moreover, introducing third parties, by using eggs or sperm from donors, or through surrogacy, violates the integrity of the marital relationship, just as it would be violated by sexual relations with a person outside the marriage.<br /><br />"Fertility clinics show disrespect for young men and women when they treat them as commodities, by offering large sums of money for sperm or egg donors with specific intellectual, physical, or personality traits," the document added.<br /><br />The bishops also noted that these cash incentives can lead women to put in jeopardy their health in the egg extraction process. There are, indeed, many good reasons to have serious objections to IVF.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-83034477327258473542010-05-22T12:05:00.000-07:002010-05-22T12:06:39.539-07:00Former American Idol Finalist expanding family through Surrogacy<strong>Former 'American Idol' finalist Chris Daughtry and wife expecting twins</strong><br /><br />Chris Daughtry is doubling his number of children. <br /><br /> <br />The former American Idol fifth-season finalist announced Monday on his band's website that his wife Deanna is pregnant with twins, who are due in November. <br /><br />"Deanna and I are overjoyed about this double blessing," said Daughtry in a statement. <br /> <br /><br />"Thank you for your expressions of love and support and for respecting for our privacy during this special time." <br /><br />Since Deanna underwent a partial hysterectomy in 2006, the couple used intravenous fertilization and had their embryos transferred to a gestational surrogate for the pregnancy, according to the statement. <br /><br />The couple, who wed in November 2000, are already the parents of 13-year-old daughter Hannah, from Deanna's previous marriage, and 11-year-old son Griffin.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-62651223099518860132010-05-09T05:02:00.000-07:002010-05-09T05:04:12.803-07:00Tough Rules for Overseas Surrogacy for Australians going to India<strong>Rules get tough for overseas surrogacy STEPHANIE PEATLING NATIONAL</strong> <br />May 9, 2010<br /> <br />PEOPLE using surrogate mothers in India may no longer be able to do so after the Immigration Department said it would not guarantee citizenship to babies.<br /><br />India - one of the most popular destinations for couples seeking surrogacy arrangements - is changing its laws to require prospective parents to obtain a guarantee of citizenship for their child before starting the surrogacy process.<br /><br />But the Immigration Department has confirmed to The Sun-Herald that it will not change its requirements for parents wanting to bring babies born through foreign surrogacy arrangements to Australia.<br /><br />A spokesman said a child born overseas as a result of surrogacy would only be ''eligible for Australian citizenship by descent if at least one of the biological parents is an Australian citizen who has been legally recognised as the parent of the child''.<br /><br />To obtain citizenship for babies the Department of Immigration requires DNA proof of parenthood. This cannot be given in advance of any arrangements being made.<br /><br />Australia Surrogacy, a private organisation that helps people make international surrogacy arrangements, said it had recently stopped working in India, in part because citizenship requirements were too onerous.<br /><br />''Some parents were able to exit the country without any trouble but other parents were stuck in India for over eight to 10 weeks,'' a spokeswoman said.<br /><br />The spokeswoman said people often chose India because its surrogacy clinics were less expensive but found themselves caught up in an industry that was only starting to be regulated.<br /><br />The state and federal governments have recognised the growing popularity of domestic surrogacy, with attorneys-general deciding late last week to pursue nationally consistent laws.<br /><br />Law Society of NSW president Mary Macken said a uniform approach would make it easier for people to enter into domestic agreements and not be forced overseas.<br /><br />''There is currently much confusion within Australia as each state and territory mostly has different surrogacy laws,'' Ms Macken said.<br /><br />''More importantly, it is preferable to have uniform surrogacy laws in Australia in order to provide for a safe clinical environment so commissioning parents who may become frustrated with the inadequate Australia state laws are not tempted to travel overseas and enter into a commercial surrogacy.''<br /><br />Commercial surrogacy remains illegal but people are able to make ''reasonable payments'' to a surrogate mother who volunteers to carry a baby.<br /><br />NSW will proceed with laws that would allow the courts to recognise couples as the parents of surrogate babies if the court believes the arrangement is in the child's best interest.<br /><br />Everyone involved in the arrangement would have to undergo counselling and prove the arrangement was in place before the baby was conceived.<br /><br /><br />Source: The Sydney Morning HeraldThe National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-13923215374943066482010-05-09T05:00:00.000-07:002010-05-09T05:01:37.873-07:00Israeli Man stuck in India with babies<strong>Gay father of twins born to Indian surrogate denied permission to bring his sons home </strong><br /><br />Family court has refused to issue a standard legal order that would pave the way for the children to obtain Israeli citizenship. <br />By Tomer Zarchin <br /><br />A homosexual father of twins who were born to a surrogate mother in India is being denied permission to enter the country with his infant sons. The move stems from a family court's refusal to issue a standard legal order that would pave the way for the children to obtain Israeli citizenship. <br /><br />For the past two months Dan Goldberg and his twin sons, Itai and Liron, have been staying at a Mumbai hotel, awaiting permission from the Jerusalem Family Court to proceed with a paternity test that would determine whether he is indeed their biological father. Itai and Liron Goldberg have been denied permission to enter Israel.<br /> <br /><br />Until the test is performed, the babies will not be granted entry into the country, nor will they be eligible to receive health insurance or medical treatments. <br /><br />In dozens of prior instances, family courts have issued decrees requiring Israeli parents of children born abroad to undergo DNA testing to confirm they are in fact the biological parents - a prerequisite for the childrens' naturalization as Israeli citizens. <br /><br />In Goldberg's case, the twin boys were delivered by a gestational carrier who had been implanted with an embryo from another woman. Goldberg cannot legally bring the babies into the country without permission from the court to perform a paternity test. <br /><br />Judge Philip Marcus, unlike his colleagues on other family court benches, rendered a decision this past March in which he stated that he lacked the jurisdiction to issue a court order for Goldberg to take a paternity test. In addition to the Goldberg case, Marcus has also delayed issuing decrees in two other instances involving homosexual couples from Jerusalem expecting the birth of their children via surrogacy. <br /><br />In explaining his decision, and as appears in the state protocol, Marcus stated: "If it turns out that one of the [purported fathers] sitting here is a pedophile or serial killer, these are things that the state must examine." <br /><br />An appeal was filed on Goldberg's behalf with the Jerusalem District Court, yet a panel of primarily religiously observant judges agreed with the petitioner's claim that Marcus does have authority to issue an order for a paternity test, but ordered that a legal guardian be appointed to represent the minors, and that the case be referred back to Marcus. <br /><br />"This is a state of contradictions," Goldberg, a 42-year-old Jerusalem restaurateur, said via telephone in Mumbai. "I'm an Israeli citizen, I served in a combat unit during two intifadas and I still serve in the reserves. I've also volunteered with the police for years. But when I want to realize my right to be a parent, the state kicks me to the curb." <br /><br />No time to reflect <br /><br />Each of the three prospective fathers who have been denied the court order for a paternity test requested the assistance of a clinic in India to begin the surrogacy process, over the course of the last year. Each also signed a legally binding agreement with a woman, an Indian citizen, who agreed to carry the child to term after being implanted with an embryo. The egg donor and the child's carrier renounced any claims to the children. <br /><br />Late last year, each of the three men filed separate appeals with the Jerusalem Family Court to begin the process of confirming their paternity by DNA testing so that the children who were either born or had yet to be delivered would receive Israeli citizenship. After appearing before Marcus this past March, the three men were surprised when the judge ruled that he lacked the authority to issue the order - despite the fact that other family court judges had repeatedly done so in prior surrogacy cases. <br /><br />Homosexual couples in Israel who wish to conceive a child via surrogacy primarily pursue this option in the United States and India. As the practice has become more widespread, the Interior Ministry issued a set of guidelines that codify the process of naturalization for the newborns so that they would be legally permitted entry into the country. In the case of male homosexual couples, because only one parent can be the biological father, the other is usually required to go through the process of adopting the baby in order to receive recognition as the child's legal guardian. <br /><br />In his conversation with Haaretz yesterday, Goldberg sounded frustrated. He has so far spent $45,000 to complete the surrogacy process, after looking for ways to have children for four years. After two failed attempts at in vitro fertilization in India, he finally realized his dream. <br /><br />Goldberg, who is struggling to get by while in India, has not been able to find time to reflect on the experience. "The cost of living here over time is exorbitant," he said. "Since I need to provide my children with a good environment, the hotel is reasonable. But they have no insurance, I can't get them the vaccinations that babies usually receive in Israel, and I can't afford the costs of medical check-ups. <br /><br />"I've burned through my savings and I have asked foreigners to help me financially," he continued. "Other couples that came to Mumbai after me have already left India with their children - who received citizenship because they received the court order for the paternity test from judges who are not in Jerusalem. <br /><br />"Let me wage this legal battle with my children in Israel, not India," he said. <br /><br />http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/gay-father-of-twins-born-to-indian-surrogate-denied-permission-to-bring-his-sons-home-1.289128The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-8454463822445629242010-04-30T04:10:00.000-07:002010-04-30T04:12:28.503-07:00Woman and Grandson working with a surrogate<strong>'I'm in love with my grandson and we're having a baby'</strong><br /><br />http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-idea/real-life/article/-/7124792/im-in-love-with-my-grandson-were-having-a-baby/<br /><br />Pearl Carter is positively glowing with joy. She has a handsome new boyfriend, is enjoying an active sex life after many years of celibacy and, amazingly, is preparing to become a mother again.<br /><br />But the retired grandmother isn't carrying the baby herself. She and her young lover have spent a staggering $54,000 hiring a surrogate to help them with their dreams of having a child.<br /><br />What makes Pearl's decision to become a mum again even more shocking is that her new boyfriend is her biological grandson, 26-year-old Phil Bailey.<br /><br />Phil is the son of Pearl's daughter Lynette Bailey, and the pair is braving public horror and even prison by breaking one of the last taboos – incest.<br /><br />However, the pair makes no apologies for their controversial plan to start their own family.<br /><br />'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion,' Pearl says. 'I am in love with Phil and he's in love with me. Soon I'll be holding my son or daughter in my arms and Phil will be the proud dad'.<br /><br />Phil adds, 'I love Pearl with all my heart. I've always been attracted to older women and I think Pearl is gorgeous. Now I'm going to be a dad and I can't wait.<br /><br />'Yes, we get laughed at and bullied when we go out and kiss in public but we don't care. You can't help who you fall for.'<br /><br />Pearl was 18 when she fell pregnant with daughter Lynette. She was living with her Catholic parents in Indiana and they insisted she give the baby away, so as not to bring the family into disrepute.<br /><br />They organised a private adoption and Pearl never again saw her baby girl.<br /><br /><br />Pearl went on to marry, but she never had any more children. Instead she searched for her lost daughter until finally giving up hope 15 years ago.<br /><br />Finding each other<br /><br />In 1983, Pearl's daughter Lynette had a baby of her own, who she named Phil. She raised him as a single mother.<br /><br />'My mother told me she was adopted when I was 18, and at the same time she told me she'd been diagnosed with brain cancer,' Phil says. 'I was devastated.'<br /><br />Phil nursed his mum for six months before she died. It was then he decided to track down his grandmother. It took three years before he found an address for Pearl and wrote to her.<br /><br />'I was stunned to get his letter,' says Pearl, who was now single. 'My heart jumped that I'd be re-united with a grandson. I wrote back immediately and included my phone number.'<br /><br />When Phil phoned Pearl, the pair admits they were both rather nervous. Pearl told Phil about being forced to give up Lynette for adoption, and Phil told Pearl about his mum dying of cancer.<br /><br />'We both cried but kept talking for three hours,' she says. 'When he emailed me a photo, I thought what a handsome and sexy man he was before pinching myself – he was my grandson!'<br /><br />Confused, Pearl talked to a friend, who told her about an article she'd read on Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA), which occurs when close relatives meet as adults and are attracted to each other.<br /><br />'I could now understand my feelings and realise they weren't wrong,' Pearl says.<br /><br />In 2006, Phil met his grandmother for the first time.<br /><br />'From the first moment that I saw him, I knew we would never have a grandmother-grandson relationship,' Pearl remembers happily. 'For the first time in years I felt sexually alive.'<br /><br />Phil admits that he had the same feelings towards Pearl.<br /><br />'I wanted to kiss her there and then,' he says. 'My feelings were overwhelming.'<br /><br />The pair spent the first week shopping, bowling and eating out. During the second week, giggly on wine after a night out, Pearl decided she wasn't going to deny her feelings anymore.<br /><br />Unexpected feelings<br /><br />'I called Phil into my bedroom, sat him on the bed, and then I leant over and kissed him,' Pearl says.<br /><br />'I expected rejection but instead he kissed me back.'<br /><br />Pearl then explained to Phil what she'd discovered about GSA.<br /><br />'I was thrilled and excited,' Phil says. 'I could be with Pearl and it was OK because she'd never raised me or been in my life.'<br /><br />That night, grandmother and grandson became lovers.<br /><br />'Making love to Pearl was a real eye-opener. It was love combined with all this sexual tension that had been building up,' Phil openly explains.<br /><br />Phil, a carpenter, agreed to live with Pearl and get a job with a local building firm.<br /><br />'Living with Phil as my life partner has been amazing. He cooks and cleans and we make love three times a week. We can't keep our hands off each other.'<br /><br />Twelve months ago, Phil made the shocking admission that he wanted a child. Pearl told him she was desperate for a baby as well, but it was one wish that she couldn't fulfil as she'd already gone through menopause.<br /><br />The determined pair then decided to use Pearl's retirement money to find a surrogate mother and buy a donor egg to inseminate with Phil's sperm. They placed an ad asking for an open-minded surrogate, and Roxanne Campbell applied. The three met up a few times and hit it off.<br />'Initially I was shocked,' says Roxanne on learning the couple were related. 'But they're a brilliant pair and I saw how much they loved each other. I know the baby will be loved too.'<br /><br />The couple sees 30-year-old Roxanne once a month and accompany her for scans, with Pearl playing the part of a pal or the baby's grandmother.<br /><br />'I am just so happy,' Pearl says.<br /><br />'I am finally going to be a mum and not forced to give up my child. Phil's going to be a great dad. I never in a million years thought at 72 I'd be "pregnant" and in love with my grandson. I make no apologies and I believe God's given me a second chance.'The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-35564823365979144532010-04-27T17:52:00.000-07:002010-04-27T17:54:40.209-07:00Adoption Agency escapes punishment after breaking rules<strong>Adoption agencies break rules, escape punishment</strong><br /><br />AJC investigation: Weak oversight on private adoption agencies ShareThisPrint E-mail .By Alan Judd <br /><br /><br />The Atlanta Journal-Constitution <br /><br />She was 24, a fair-skinned, curly haired brunette from California’s San Joaquin Valley. She quit school after the 11th grade but wanted to go back to become a teacher or maybe a corrections officer. She said she liked “shopping, swimming, going out.” Her favorite food: Mexican. Her favorite places: the mountains and the beach.<br /><br /><br /> The Freemans started trying in late 2008 to adopt a child through Valley of Hope. After many twists and turns, they were unable to proceed with the agency and finally adopted a child late last year using another agency. <br /><br /><br />For Krista and Luis Arduz, she represented their best hope for a baby.<br /><br />Early last year, the Kentucky couple agreed to adopt the California woman’s infant through a Georgia adoption agency. Like many modern private adoptions, this was to be a complex multi-state transaction, conducted mostly through e-mails and cellphones, Web sites and text messages — not to mention wire transfers involving thousands of dollars.<br /><br />And the way it unraveled sheds light on the state’s weak oversight of the 336 private agencies that arrange adoptions and foster care and operate group homes in Georgia, an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows.<br /><br />Just three times since 2008, the Journal-Constitution found, has the state imposed penalties against agencies that exclusively handle adoptions: two fines and one license revocation.<br /><br />The newspaper’s review of more than 1,500 reports of inspections and investigations found that regulators repeatedly forgave violations of rules fundamental to safe adoptions: failing to check parents’ criminal records, for instance, or not documenting safe environments in adoptive homes.<br /><br />Several agencies received citations for failing to show that payments to birth mothers covered only legitimate medical or living expenses. At least one agency — Valley of Hope Adoption Inc. of Woodstock, with which the Arduzes worked — was cited for having money for a birth mother’s expenses deposited into its executive director’s personal bank account.<br /><br />None of those violations resulted in penalties.<br /><br />State law allows fines as high as $25,000. But officials say they prefer to persuade agencies to comply with the rules than impose harsh penalties.<br /><br />“We try to work with as many agencies as possible so there are viable options for Georgia’s children,” said Keith Bostick, director of the Office of Residential Child Care, which regulates adoption and foster care agencies.<br /><br />“It is a balancing act,” Bostick said. “Often it’s not black, it’s not white — it’s gray.”<br /><br />Valley of Hope is one of many agencies that existed in the gray area.<br /><br />The agency eluded punishment for almost two years, even though state officials knew it was violating adoption rules. But the state didn’t share information about the agency with the public until late 2009.<br /><br />Erin Chaffee, Valley of Hope’s founder and executive director, declined repeated requests for an interview. In an e-mail to a reporter late Friday, she said, “Adoption is a highly personal and confidential business and for those reasons it is not appropriate for me to engage in a discussion with you.” In another e-mail Saturday, she added, “We have helped over 100 clients adopt successfully and only a handful of clients have had failed adoptions.”<br /><br />The Arduzes knew nothing about Valley of Hope’s regulatory history when they made the first of several payments that were to total more than $31,000. Neither did Brea and Jonathan Freeman, a Nashville-area couple whose own attempt to adopt through Valley of Hope overlapped the Arduzes’.<br /><br />In late 2008, the Freemans decided to expand their family of three biological children and one adopted child. They considered several adoption agencies before settling on one that had only recently gone into business: Valley of Hope.<br /><br />“We found them on the Internet,” Brea Freeman said recently. “I could find nothing bad about them, at the time.”<br /><br /><br />Valley of Hope broke the rules even before it completed its first adoption.<br /><br />Chaffee, a licensed social worker who had worked for another adoption agency, established Valley of Hope in January 2008 as a for-profit business. State law requires adoption agencies to operate as not-for-profit organizations to guard against the appearance of baby selling.<br /><br />Chaffee accepted the agency’s first adoption application fee from prospective parents in June 2008 — two months before Valley of Hope received a state license allowing it to do so, records show. In her e-mail Saturday, Chaffee said regulators “had trouble understanding” that she was working with those parents through a separate consulting company.<br /><br />As at other agencies, an adoption handled by Valley of Hope could be expensive — $40,000 or more — and lacking guarantees. Birth mothers may change their minds at any time, leaving adoptive parents with little to show for their financial and emotional investments.<br /><br />But on Valley of Hope’s Web site, Chaffee reassures both prospective parents and birth mothers. She describes Valley of Hope as a Christian mission offering the “free gift” of “everlasting life.” All children, the Web site states, are “wonderfully made by the Creator.”<br /><br />Elsewhere Chaffee takes a more secular tone:<br /><br />“So many couples come to us after spending a lot of money on their adoption without success, or they tell us they have been waiting forever to adopt and nothing has panned out,” Chaffee writes. By working with birth mothers in “states that have favorable adoption laws,” she says, prospective parents could expect a “match” in four to six months — half as long as at many other agencies.<br /><br />On the Web site, several clients praise Chaffee and her agency.<br /><br />“We were so happy with the level of personal service and support we were given at Valley of Hope,” a couple identified as Paul and Miriam of New Jersey say. “Erin was always available to talk to us, and seemed almost as excited as we were about the whole process. We could not believe that she found us a match after TWO WEEKS!!”<br /><br />Another couple, identified as Pamela and Jason from Canada, wrote to Chaffee: “When we contacted you, we had come close to losing the dream of becoming parents. Now the pain is almost forgotten.”<br /><br />‘My baby’<br /><br />Krista and Luis Arduz also dreamed of becoming parents once more.<br /><br />But Krista, a physician’s assistant in a dermatology practice, was in her 40s, and her last pregnancy and delivery had been difficult. She feared she would not be able to conceive again. Adoption, she said recently, seemed the best alternative.<br /><br />In early 2009, the Arduzes hired an adoption facilitator to help sort through the Internet’s hundreds of posted “situations” — pregnant women offering their babies for adoption. The couple settled on what seemed to be a good match: a baby due April 17 to a 24-year-old California woman offering her child for adoption through Valley of Hope.<br /><br />Chaffee faxed the Arduzes a contract, which they signed Feb. 13, 2009, the same day they wired $12,500 to Valley of Hope for the adoption fee. A few hours later, Krista Arduz said, Chaffee wanted another $2,000 sent immediately for the birth mother’s expenses. It was Friday afternoon, too late to send the money from the Arduzes’ credit union. Chaffee wouldn’t wait, Krista said. So the Arduzes wired the money from a Western Union outlet.<br /><br />The birth mother, by then seven months pregnant and living on food stamps and Medicaid, remained in her small, remote hometown. She was married and had two boys, a 3-year-old and a 10-month-old. Her husband, who was not the father of her sons or the unborn child, did not know she planned to give up the baby, she wrote in a birth-mother questionnaire that Valley of Hope shared with the Arduzes. The biological father, whom she knew only as “Joe,” wasn’t aware of her pregnancy.<br /><br />The birth-mother form posed a question: “If you could, what would you tell the baby about yourself and your decision?”<br /><br />She answered: “I love you and I think I did what was best for the future of child.”<br /><br />The next question: “Why are you placing this child for adoption?”<br /><br />Her response: “I am not in any way financially stable or in the position to bring a baby into this world to suffer because I can’t provide.”<br /><br />Still, she wrote that although she would allow the adoptive parents into the delivery room, she wanted to hold the baby first and to spend time alone with the child. She said she would let the adoptive parents name the child, so long as they told her what they planned to call “my baby.”<br /><br />From the start, Krista Arduz said, everything was complicated and confusing. The Arduzes had so many questions: When should they buy airline tickets to pick up the baby in California? How long should they expect to stay there? What kind of relationship might they have with the mother?<br /><br />“No guidance,” Arduz said of Valley of Hope’s responses to their inquiries.<br /><br />“It would be nothing to call them two or three times and never hear back from them,” she said. “We were very frustrated.”<br /><br /><br />Cautionary tale<br /><br />In Nashville, Brea and Jonathan Freeman were frustrated, too. When they began working with Valley of Hope in late 2008, they had been impressed. Brea Freeman had imagined Chaffee as someone who could be a close friend if they lived in the same city. And Chaffee had called frequently with possible adoption matches, exuding what Freeman called “a sense of urgency.”<br /><br />But, she said, Chaffee began asking whether the Freemans might exceed their self-imposed $20,000 cap on adoption expenses. After they said no, Brea Freeman said, they heard from Chaffee less often, a criticism made by others in complaints to state regulators. “If there was a chance you might be willing to spend money,” Freeman said, “she would call you back in 30 seconds.”<br /><br />Freeman took copious notes of her conversations with Chaffee and saved dozens of e-mails. Her documentation, which she shared with a reporter, depicts an increasingly muddled and contentious adoption.<br /><br />The Freemans thought they had been “matched” with a birth mother in Atlanta. Valley of Hope later told the couple the match had been only preliminary.<br /><br />By early April, the Freemans were worried. The birth mother’s due date came and went. Chaffee was supposed to arrange a telephone conference call between the birth mother and the Freemans, but that fell through. Communication from Chaffee became less frequent.<br /><br />“When you get matched with somebody, it’s like being pregnant and waiting to give birth,” Brea Freeman said. “To pull the rug out from under us, it was devastating.”<br /><br />On April 5, Chaffee e-mailed the Freemans to say the birth mother was waffling. But she said she hoped to keep the adoption on track by acting “more like a friend” to her, and reminding her that by keeping the baby, she would forfeit the money for her expenses.<br /><br />“She made comments like, ‘I have to do the plan,’ meaning the adoption plan, and then later said, ‘I really don’t want to give up my baby,’” Chaffee wrote in an e-mail to Freeman. “I explained to her in great detail about the benefits of an open adoption.”<br /><br />Freeman felt uncomfortable with Chaffee’s strategy. The next day, she and her husband backed out of the adoption.<br /><br />The woman kept her baby. After Freeman complained about the outcome, a Valley of Hope caseworker sent her an e-mail describing the woman as “not stable,” adding that her erratic nature was why the agency had not asked the couple to pay fees in advance.<br /><br />By e-mail on Saturday, Chaffee said: “I have never pressured a birth parent to place a child.”<br /><br />Freeman discussed the episode at length on her blog. She sees it as a cautionary tale.<br /><br />“I couldn’t imagine,” she said, “looking my child in the eye one day and saying, ‘You know, the agency pressured your mom to give you up.’”<br /><br /><br />‘Everything was fine’<br /><br />The Arduzes’ birth mother was due April 17. Krista Arduz booked a flight for April 15, reserved a room in the town’s new Holiday Inn Express, and waited for word about the woman’s latest visit with her doctor.<br /><br />With five days to go, Luis Arduz e-mailed Chaffee: “I wanted to inquire if you have had contact ... after her doctor appointment.”<br /><br />Chaffee replied from her BlackBerry: “Her mom told me everything was fine at the appt, but no details.”<br /><br />That weekend, the Arduzes got a call from a California lawyer who was handling legal work on the adoption. He had just heard that the baby had arrived at least a week earlier — and the birth mother had backed out of the adoption.<br /><br />The child was born, the lawyer told the Arduzes, before Chaffee purportedly spoke with the woman’s mother.<br /><br />The news enraged the Arduzes. Why, they wondered, had Chaffee not told them about the birth? Did she even know about the baby? If so, why had she misled them about the birth mother’s appointment with the doctor?<br /><br />Chaffee says that when birth mothers change their minds, “the adoptive parents are notified as soon as the agency has confirmation of the decision.”<br /><br />Regardless, last April 13, a Monday, Krista Arduz sent Chaffee a seemingly innocuous e-mail: “Wondering if you talked with [the birth mother] to find out about her visit to the hospital this past week. We’re anxiously waiting to know how she’s doing and would appreciate any info you have (even if you haven’t spoken with her).”<br /><br />Chaffee wrote back: “I spoke with her Tuesday and everything was good. ... Her doctor’s office said there was no new information since her last visit.”<br /><br />On the telephone that evening, Luis Arduz confronted Chaffee about the mother’s decision. Chaffee, the Arduzes say, repeatedly said she didn’t know what she could have done differently.<br /><br />Luis Arduz was incredulous.<br /><br />“You,” he asked Chaffee, “are the last one to know?”<br /><br /><br />No evidence of fraud<br /><br />Later in the month, Krista Arduz filed a complaint against Valley of Hope with Georgia regulators. Already, they were looking into a similar case that had been reported in March.<br /><br />It wasn’t until July 7, though, that an inspector visited the adoption agency’s offices in Cherokee County.<br /><br />Generally corroborating the Arduzes’ allegations, the inspector found numerous rules violations: a failure to document why money was wired to birth mothers, the depositing of mothers’ expense money into Chaffee’s bank account, a variable fee schedule that suggested different prices for different babies.<br /><br />Other citations alleged that Valley of Hope had not adequately screened adoptive families. For instance, the agency didn’t check whether at least one prospective parent had a criminal record, didn’t document another’s mental health evaluation and could not show it had confirmed the character references for a third.<br /><br />And, the inspector said, Valley of Hope still was operating illegally as a for-profit adoption agency. (It changed its corporate registration to non-profit in December 2009, records show.)<br /><br />But the inspector recommended no punishment; she found no evidence of fraud, and concluded the agency had not intentionally broken rules.<br /><br />Chaffee now denies violating the rules, although she never contested state citations.<br /><br />By this February, officials determined Valley of Hope had neither corrected deficiencies nor submitted a plan to do so. “All of it added up to something that didn’t look right,” said Bostick, the chief state regulator.<br /><br />On Feb. 15, the state revoked Valley of Hope’s license.<br /><br />As far as Bostick is concerned, the agency is out of business. But its Web site is still active. It is advertising three “situations” to prospective parents on adoption sites, although Chaffee says her company is accepting no new clients. Regardless, she continues to operate her separate adoption consulting firm.<br /><br />A closed chapter<br /><br />The failed adoptions left the Freemans and the Arduzes in different places.<br /><br />The Freemans worked with another agency, in Houston, and adopted a child later last year.<br /><br />The Arduzes hired a lawyer to request a refund from Valley of Hope. Finally, they got back $3,000, half the money they had paid for the birth mother’s expenses. But they still are out $15,500.<br /><br />With that, the Arduzes gave up on adoption.<br /><br />“We lost so much money that I’m still paying for,” Krista Arduz said. “We sort of closed that chapter.”<br /><br />Shortly after the adoption fell through, Arduz’s appendix ruptured. In bed for weeks with plenty of time to think, she wrote a letter to Chaffee — “woman to woman, mother to mother,” she said. She asked for a full refund, or at least an apology.<br /><br />She never heard back.<br /><br /><br />--------------------The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-5630954343884809512010-04-25T13:23:00.000-07:002010-04-25T13:24:34.567-07:00Isreali Gay Men turn to US for surrogacyThe quest for a family<br /><strong><br />Israeli gays turn to the United States for surrogate births -- illegal in their country</strong><br />Sunday, April 25, 2010<br /><br />By Evan Pondel, GlobalPost<br /><br />TEL AVIV, Israel -- At an age when most people are welcoming their first grandchildren into the world, Avishay Greenfield, 59, gets little sleep as a father of twin babies.<br /><br />For Mr. Greenfield, it is a dream come true, after waiting several decades to have children with his partner. But this later-in-life scenario isn't only a function of family dynamics and finances.<br /><br />In the last several years, the coming of age for gay rights in Israel has encouraged a growing number of same-sex couples -- including Mr. Greenfield and his partner -- to consider surrogacy as an option for having children.<br /><br />Yet despite the country's reputation as a world leader in reproductive technology, surrogacy is illegal for same-sex couples. A recently failed appeal challenging surrogacy laws serves as another setback for the gay community in Israel, forcing many couples to seek costly alternatives abroad.<br /><br />"It is a basic human instinct and deep emotional need to want children," said Mr. Greenfield, who found a surrogate in the United States to give birth to his twins seven months ago. "It is absurd that we can't do this in our own country and must spend a lot of money to have children elsewhere."<br /><br />The number of Israeli gay couples who have worked with U.S.-based agencies is unknown, but surrogate births to same-sex Israeli couples are expected to double this year at Circle Surrogacy, a Boston-based group that helped Mr. Greenfield find a surrogate. Israeli gay couples who worked with Circle in 2009 gave birth to 18 children.<br /><br />The average cost for U.S. surrogacy services: $100,000 to $180,000, a price range that motivates many couples to seek out less-expensive alternatives in other countries, including India and Ukraine.<br /><br />But it is significantly easier for Israelis to have children in the United States because of the countries' close diplomatic ties. And couples in search of surrogates in India and other places can hit a snag when trying to establish Israeli citizenship for their babies.<br /><br />Finding the right surrogate is no easy feat either. In fact, surrogacy has never been a popular option for Israelis because of the strict laws governing who can be a surrogate.<br /><br />Depending on religious beliefs, the rules are so cumbersome that surrogacy falls out of favor for many couples. For example, some religious leaders say the birth mother must be single and Jewish to ensure that the baby is Jewish; same goes for the egg donor. The pendulum swings the other way, too, as other religious leaders say it is not necessary to have a Jewish birth mother.<br /><br />"Right now, the rabbinic opinion weighs toward the genetic mother as being the legal mother," said Rabbi Edward Reichman, a medical doctor and Albert Einstein College of Medicine professor in New York. "But it is hard to set legal precedents for surrogacy, because these things didn't exist in prior centuries."<br /><br />In general, though, the concept of surrogacy for same-sex couples is frowned upon by religious Jews. "There is still ignorance and lack of acceptance among sectors of [Israeli] society," said Irit Rosenblum, founder and executive director of New Family Organization in Tel Aviv. About 50 percent of the Israeli population feels that same-sex couples are just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples, according to Ms. Rosenblum.<br /><br />Procreation has a special meaning in Israel. "People in Israel, religious and secular, tend to take the biblical commandment, 'Be fruitful and multiply' seriously," Ms. Rosenblum said. "Having children is deeply rooted in Jewish culture and is a strong Jewish value. Israel is a very family and children-oriented society, and people respect parenting and family."<br /><br />There is a subtle likeness to Mr. Greenfield in one of his twins. He and his partner each fertilized an egg that was then carried by the same surrogate.<br /><br />The challenge was finding a surrogate who was aligned with the values that Mr. Greenfield envisioned for the birth mother of his children. The search began by riffling through dozens upon dozens of profiles. Eye color, height, education, religious beliefs and geographic locations were presented as if items on a menu.<br /><br />Mr. Greenfield and his partner eventually found a match in an unexpected place -- Texas. The surrogate and her husband were former military and Christian. "But when we met them, we knew immediately that they were the right fit," Mr. Greenfield said. "They share the same values and are truly an extension of our family."<br /><br />The process from finding a surrogate to the birth was about a year, but establishing Israeli citizenship for a child born in the United States posed other challenges.<br /><br />After a child is born to a surrogate, parents must submit documents to Israel with DNA proof of parenthood. At the same time, the surrogate mother has to legally withdraw from parenthood, but only if a social worker appointed by the court attests that the circumstances justify the withdrawal. And finally, a conversion to Judaism may be performed to ensure the Jewishness of the newborn.<br /><br />Mr. Greenfield said the process is emotionally draining, especially when family and friends are so far away. Of course, the biggest deterrent is cost. Health care in Israel is covered by the government for all citizens, whether it is a routine check-up or fertility treatments. That's not the case for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender couples who want to have children.<br /><br />A court decision in 2005 granted lesbian couples the right to adopt a child born to the other partner by artificial insemination, and while it was a milestone event for a population that dreamed of parenthood, it fell short of entitling same-sex couples to surrogacy rights.<br /><br />Etai Pinkas, a gay rights activist and Tel Aviv's youngest city councilman, was denied access to the Israeli surrogacy program last year. He recently appealed to the Supreme Court, but a couple of weeks ago was told by a representative that the surrogacy law does not apply to same-sex couples. Mr. Pinkas and his partner are now in the process of appealing to the Knesset -- Israel'si parliament -- to redefine surrogacy laws.<br /><br />"This is pure discrimination that same-sex parenthood is not supported by the state of Israel," said Mr. Pinkas, who is also searching for surrogacy options outside the country. "I'm hoping to set a precedent here. We just want to have kids."<br /><br />Even though the state rejected Mr. Pinkas' appeal, the state agreed that his petition is a wake-up call for Israel to re-examine the concept of family, parenthood and human dignity.<br /><br />Einat Wilf, a Labor member of the Knesset, said the Israeli government is in the process of reviewing fertility laws. When asked whether the country would consider loosening such laws to increase fertility rates for Israelis, Mr. Wilf said the laws are focused on improving access to healthcare, not boosting demographics.<br /><br />John Weltman, president and founder of Circle Surrogacy, said the very culture of Israel bodes well for surrogacy. "Family values are strong in this country," said Mr. Weltman, who was a commercial litigator before founding Circle in 1995. "But no matter where people are from, surrogacy shouldn't be perceived as just a process for those who want to have kids. It is about doing the most intimate thing in the world with a total stranger who will change your life forever."<br /><br />Mr. Weltman began focusing Circle's attention on Israel after meeting Ron Poole-Dayan, an Israeli who moved to the United States to have children. Mr. Dayan said it was absurd a decade ago to think that Israeli same-sex couples would even consider having children.<br /><br />"But there has been a critical mass of Israeli gay couples who have accumulated enough wealth," said Mr. Dayan, who has 9-year-old twins. "I do not think gay couples are attempting to fit into Israeli society. It's more of a genuine shared appreciation of the joys of having a family."<br /><br /><br /><br />Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10115/1053269-82.stm#ixzz0m95ItXNNThe National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-18802843507481360972010-04-18T04:30:00.001-07:002010-04-18T04:30:46.207-07:00Frozen Embryo Dispute<strong>Couples Clash Over Frozen Embryo Custody</strong><br /><br />By JOE HARRIS <br /><br /> CLAYTON, Mo. (CN) - A Missouri couple has traded lawsuits with a California couple in a case that tests the bounds of child custody law. The couples are fighting over control of two frozen embryos stored in a California fertility clinic. The case raises ethical questions over the definition of family relationships and the word used to describe the transfer of embryos: adoption or donation. <br /> Edward and Kerry Lambert, of Pleasanton, Calif., filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court to secure custody of embryos they had given Missouri couple Jen and Patrick McLaughlin. <br /> The embryos in dispute were created by the Lamberts, with Edward's sperm and an anonymous donor's egg. After the birth of their son, the Lamberts were left with four frozen embryos that they decided to give to the McLaughlins. The Lamberts say the other couple breached their contract by not returning the unused embryos after the McLaughlins gave birth to twins with the first two. <br /> The Lamberts claim they do not want the remaining embryos implanted in Jen McLaughlin because of her violation of the contract and her "recent behavior in connection with the two embryos."<br /> The McLaughlins fought back with a lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court, claiming Jen's interests in "her unborn children" and the embryos' interest in their siblings "is of such uniqueness" to give the McLaughlins legal right to the embryos.<br /><br />TECHNOLOGY & COMPLICATIONS<br /> The embryo adoption agreement contains a stipulation that any unused embryos could revert back to the Lamberts after one year, should the couple so choose.<br /> But the McLaughlins' attorney, Albert Watkins, challenges the validity of the provision. He said the contract is a glorified form contract, written up years earlier by an attorney at the urging of the Catholic Archdiocese.<br /> At the time, Catholicism was trying to help its followers explore the new technology of in vitro fertilization, Watkins said. But the technology was not foolproof. Watkins said dozens of eggs were frozen and up to 12 to 14 eggs were implanted in a woman at once, often causing traumatic multiple miscarriages.<br /> "There would be women who would go through 12 to 14 miscarriages in the span of a day or two and after that horrible experience, they would say 'I'm not going through this again,'" Watkins said. "Then you would have all these frozen embryos in limbo. So the Catholic Church included this inversion paragraph in the contract."<br /> But technology improved, resulting in Jen McLaughlin getting pregnant and giving birth to twins on the first attempt.<br /> Jen said she promised the Lamberts to "do whatever it took to give those embryos the best chance to be born. I've done that to the best of my abilities."<br /> She said she would like to do the same for the remaining embryos, but needs time to recover from giving birth and to allow her growing family to adjust to the new arrivals.<br /> The twins made seven kids for the McLaughlins; the first five were adopted. The couple cited family togetherness as a major reason they want to keep the remaining embryos.<br /> "This is not about me," Jen said. "If I wanted a frozen embryo, there are three clinics available immediately. The issue is my family. It's about my children and protecting them."<br /><br />FAST FOOD & MOTIVES<br /> Watkins is critical of the Lamberts' suit. He compares it to an interpleader action, settling a dispute over property -- not human lives.<br /> "This isn't a sack of tacos that you pick up through a drive-thru at Jack-in-the-Box, bring to a party and you bring the rest home," Watkins said. "These are siblings, two of which are already born."<br /> Jen McLaughlin said she wasn't aware of the Lamberts' intentions to market the remaining embryos to other couples until she received a Dec. 9, 2009 email from Kerry Lambert announcing her intentions. The email came a full two months before the contract with the McLaughlins expired. It included forwarded messages between the Lamberts and the new family, and stated that the new family had spent a week with them this summer and that they lived within seven hours of the McLaughlins so the siblings could possibly grow up together.<br /> "I was stunned to find this out," Jen McLaughlin said. "My intention was that we wouldn't make a final decision until the first two were born."<br /> The twins were born on Jan. 8 of this year. McLaughlin said she immediately sent Kerry Lambert an email stating her position on the embryos, and the two discussed it on the phone that day.<br /> Later that evening, McLaughlin said she received another email from Kerry. The email was a forward of a chain of emails between the Lamberts and the new prospective family, which included information about the family and pictures.<br /> So why did the deal go sour?<br /> The Lamberts' attorney, Jed Somit, of Oakland, Calif., refused to comment. <br /> "I can only speculate as to the reasons behind the actions of the Lamberts," Watkins said. "It is my opinion that those actions are not in the best interests of the kids."<br /> Jen McLaughlin said she couldn't explain it, either.<br /> "It makes no sense," she said. Kerry Lambert "is a social worker by trade. She goes to court on behalf of kids and I'm assuming that when she goes, she fights to keep siblings together. ... She's an adoptee herself, so she knows what its like" to be separated from family, Jen said.<br /><br />LIFE & DEATH<br /> The court will not have to decide when life begins in this case. Watkins said the point is moot, because both sides agree that the frozen embryos are living beings.<br /> Instead, Watkins said the court will have to decide whether the rights of siblings to be together outweigh the contract's wording.<br /> "They (the frozen embryos) have a right to their siblings and their siblings have a right to them and their mother and father have a right to them," Watkins said. "Those provisions must take precedent over a form doctrine.<br /> "This isn't a situation where the eggs lie in limbo, but it's a situation where they just haven't been used yet because of scientific progress."<br /> Jen McLaughlin has an even deeper fear.<br /> The second email chain Kerry Lambert sent her on Dec. 9 contained personal information about the new family, including medical information about the prospective mother. After researching the mother's medical condition online, Jen believes that the woman would likely miscarry the embryos.<br /> "I don't believe she can carry to full term," she said. "I sent all of the medical information to the (Lamberts). I copied all of the information I found to the email and included links to the medical sites where I found it.<br /> "I told (the Lamberts) that I consider this a death sentence to those babies."<br /> The Lamberts seek sole custody of the two embryos, and the McLaughlins want a judge to grant Jen "the legal right to direct the disposition of the unthawed embryos." <br /> The Reproductive Science Center of the San Francisco Bay Area, where the embryos are stored, is staying neutral until the issue is decided in the courts.<br /> A hearing to address McLaughlin's request for a temporary restraining order is set for April 14. There are no pending hearings on the Lamberts' suit, according to the Alameda County Court's Web site.<br /> Meanwhile, Jen McLaughlin says she hopes a civil resolution can be reached. She still refuses to identify the Lamberts by name, instead referring to them as the donor parents, to honor a confidentiality agreement the couples had, even though the Lamberts' name became public record once the lawsuits were filed.<br /> "I'm praying that at the end of the day, we can mend our fences," Jen said. "I'm willing to forgive and forget."The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-74004492514670062822010-04-15T13:41:00.000-07:002010-04-15T13:42:03.296-07:00Russia Suspends Adoptions by AmericansRussia Suspends Adoptions by Americans<br />By CLIFFORD J. LEVY<br />Published: April 15, 2010<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/europe/16adopt.html?emc=eta1<br /><br /> <br /><br />BuzzPermalink MOSCOW — Russia formally announced on Thursday that it would suspend all adoptions of Russian children by Americans, responding to the case of a 7-year-old boy who was sent back to Moscow alone last week by his adoptive mother in Tennessee. The case of the boy, who was named Artyom in Russia before he was adopted last year, has caused widespread anger here, and Russian officials said new regulations had to be put in place before adoptions by Americans could proceed. <br /><br />Readers' Comments<br />Share your thoughts.<br />Post a Comment »<br />Read All Comments (207) »<br />The announcement by the Russian Foreign Ministry gave no indication of how long the suspension would last. The State Department in Washington is sending a high-level delegation to Moscow to hold talks on reaching an agreement, and both countries have expressed hope that the matter can be resolved quickly. <br /><br />“Future adoptions of Russian children by citizens of the United States, which are now suspended, are possible only if such an agreement is reached,” a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Andrei Nesterenko, said at a briefing on Thursday. <br /><br />Officials at the United States Embassy in Moscow said they had not received official notification of a suspension and were seeking more information from their Russian counterparts. <br /><br />Without formal notification, some American officials said they would continue operating as if no suspension had been put in place. But Russian officials said in interviews that no adoptions would be allowed for now. More than 250 American families have nearly completed the adoption process and are poised to pick up their Russian children, but their cases will not be allowed to conclude until the new rules are approved, Russian officials said. <br /><br />In all, some 3,000 American families have begun the adoption process, according to the Joint Council on International Children’s Services. Russian officials said they would continue to accept applications and process paperwork from potential adoptive parents. <br /><br />Russia was the third leading source of adoptive children in the United States in 2009, with 1,586, after China and Ethiopia, officials said. More than 50,000 Russian children have been adopted by United States citizens since 1991, according to the United States Embassy. <br /><br />Artyom, who was named Justin by his adoptive American mother, arrived in Moscow last week after flying by himself from Washington. He presented the authorities with a note from his adoptive mother in which she said she could no longer handle him. <br /><br />The mother, Torry Ann Hansen, a registered nurse from Shelbyville, Tenn., said the boy was “violent and has severe psychopathic issues.” She added that she “was lied to and misled by the Russian orphanage workers” about his troubles. <br /><br />The authorities in the United States are now investigating her conduct. <br /><br />Russian authorities, who now have custody of the boy, have said he behaves normally and have harshly criticized Ms. Hansen for sending him back. <br /><br />Cases of children adopted from Russia being harmed in the United States have received intense publicity here. Fourteen Russian children have died of abuse or neglect at their hands of the adoptive American parents since 1996, Russian officials said last year. <br /><br />Last Friday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, calling Artyom’s case “the last straw” and said he was proposing the suspension.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-713128649029962842010-04-09T15:45:00.000-07:002010-04-09T15:46:48.832-07:00Adopted Russian Boy Returned to RussiaAdopted Boy Is Returned to Russia<br />By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS<br />Published: April 9, 2010<br />http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-EU-Russia-Adopted-Boy.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=world<br /><br />MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia should freeze all child adoptions with U.S. families, the country's foreign minister urged Friday after an American woman allegedly put her 8-year-old adopted Russian son on a one-way flight back to his homeland. <br /><br />Artyom Savelyev arrived in Moscow unaccompanied on a United Airlines flight Thursday from Washington, the Kremlin children's rights office said Friday. <br /><br />The children's office said the boy, whose adoptive name is Justin Hansen, was carrying a letter from his adoptive mother, Torry Hansen of Shelbyville, Tennessee, saying she was returning him due to severe psychological problems. <br /><br />''This child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues,'' the letter said, according to Russian officials, who sent what they said was a copy of the letter to The Associated Press. The authenticity of the letter could not be independently verified. <br /><br />The U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, said he was ''deeply shocked by the news'' and ''very angry that any family would act so callously toward a child that they had legally adopted.'' <br /><br />The boy is now in the hospital in northern Moscow for a checkup, Anna Orlova, spokeswoman for Kremlin's Children Rights Commissioner Pavel Astakhov, told The Associated Press. <br /><br />Orlova, who visited Savelyev on Friday, said the child reported that his mother was ''bad,'' ''did not love him,'' and used to pull his hair. <br /><br />Savelyev was adopted late September last year from the town of Partizansk in Russia's Far East. <br /><br />He turned up at the door of the Russian Education and Science Ministry on Thursday afternoon accompanied by a Russian man who had been hired by Savelyev's adopted grandmother to pick him up from the airport, according to the ministry. The chaperone handed over the boy and his documents, and then left, officials said. <br /><br />The education minister said later Friday that it had decided to suspended the license of World Association for Children and Parents -- a Renton, Washington-based agency that processed Savelyev's adoption -- for the duration of the probe. <br /><br />Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in televised remarks that the ministry would recommend that the U.S. and Russia hammer out an agreement before any new adoptions are allowed. <br /><br />''We have taken the decision ... to suggest a freeze on any adoptions to American families until Russia and the USA sign an international agreement'' on the conditions for adoptions and the obligations of host families, Lavrov was quoted as saying. <br /><br />Lavrov said the U.S. had refused to negotiate such an accord in the past but ''the recent event was the last straw.'' <br /><br />Last year, nearly 1,600 Russian children were adopted in the United States, according to Tatyana Yakovleva of the ruling United Russia party. <br /><br />Rob Johnson, a spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, said the agency is looking into the allegations, although they do not handle international adoptions. <br /><br />Torry Ann Hansen is listed as a licensed registered nurse in Shelbyville, Tenn., according to the Tennessee Department of Health's Web site. No work address is listed. <br /><br />Her name appears in a list of August 2007 graduates from Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tenn., with a Masters of Science in Nursing degree. <br /><br />United Airlines allows unaccompanied children as young as 5 years old on direct flights. Children age 8 and above can catch connecting flights, as well. A United spokesperson wasn't immediately available to comment. <br /><br />---------------------- <br /><br />Associated Press writer Kristin Hall in Nashville, Tennessee, and Joshua Freed in Minneapolis contributed to this report.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-21632078048169938572010-03-27T08:25:00.000-07:002010-03-27T08:26:52.846-07:00Egg Donation in Oklahoma<strong>Egg Donor Option Preserved in Oklahoma!</strong><br /><br />A bill to make it unlawful to compensate egg donors in Oklahoma has been thwarted after a Senate committee chairman determined his panel will not consider the issue this session. The sponsor of HB 3077 contends the bill would not prohibit egg donation, only the practice of compensating for it, and promises to bring the bill back next year. By an overwhelming margin, the bill passed the state House weeks earlier and sent the medical and patient communities into around the clock action. Actively opposing the bill were ASRM, the Oklahoma State Medical Society and RESOLVE , The National Infertility Association. ASRM member Dr. Eli Reshef and his colleagues were instrumental in coordinating efforts to educate Oklahoma lawmakers about the detrimental effects on family building options for infertile patients, the purpose of compensation to egg donors, the minimal risks associated with the procedure and the informed consent process employed by doctors. ASRM applauds their diligent efforts. The egg donation process has come under increasing scrutiny as evidenced by legislation introduced in other states at the behest of organizations opposed to assisted reproduction. Exorbitant egg donor fees paid by some egg donor agencies have fueled the debate.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-52630433787948337722010-03-27T08:24:00.000-07:002010-03-27T08:25:34.915-07:00Surrogacy Legislation in Washington State<strong>Gestational Surrogacy Legislation Fails in Washington State</strong><br /><br />Legislation to allow payment to gestational surrogates passed the Washington House of Representatives in February, but failed to pass in the Senate before the legislative session ended. Current state law bans compensation for surrogate mothers. HB 2793 would have allowed women 21 years and older and who had previously given birth to be eligible to enter into paid surrogacy contracts. Additional requirements included obtaining medical coverage for the pregnancy and immediately after birth, passing mental and physical examinations, and signing a written consent form. Prospective parents also would have to meet certain requirements, including a mental health evaluation and an affidavit from a doctor attesting to a medical need for surrogacy. Gay and lesbian couples would have been exempt from the doctor's certification requirement.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-45653774408787195392010-03-27T08:21:00.000-07:002010-03-27T08:22:44.779-07:00High Fees for Egg DonorsEgg donors offered up to $50,000 <br />Fees far exceed ethics guidelines, study finds<br />By Clara Moskowitz<br /><br />Fertility companies are paying egg donors high fees that often exceed guidelines, especially for donors from top colleges and with certain appearances and ethnicities, a new study finds. <br /><br />The upshot: Parents with infertility problems are willing to pay up to $50,000 for a human egg they hope will produce a smart, attractive child. <br /><br />The first baby conceived through egg donation was born in 1983. Since then, the practice, which involves transferring fertilized eggs from a donor into a woman's body, has grown dramatically. The rise has been seen particularly among women with ovarian failure, women over 40, and gay men who want to have children through surrogate pregnancy. <br /><br /><br />While there are few government regulations controlling the use of this technology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a professional organization, has issued guidelines. The ASRM ethics committee recommends limits on the amount of money egg donors should be paid, saying "sums of $5,000 or more require justification and sums above $10,000 are not appropriate." Yet the recent study found that out of more than 100 egg-donor ads from 300 college newspapers, about half offered fees above $5,000, with a quarter of the ads touting payments exceeding the $10,000 limit. <br /><br />SAT scores matter<br />The study also found that the advertised fees correlated with the average SAT score (standardized test used for college admissions) at the college where the ad was placed, which suggests agencies are paying more to donors who appear more intelligent. This too is a violation of the guidelines, which state that compensation should not vary according to donors' "ethnic or other personal characteristics." <br /><br /> <br />The guidelines were set up to avoid ethical dilemmas associated with putting a price on the seeds for human life, according to the ASRM. And scaling that price based on certain human genetic material that is considered superior is especially worrying to some. <br /><br />"Commodification is a concern when­ever any monetary value is placed on human oocytes [eggs], but particularly when high values are placed on hu­man oocytes from donors with spe­cific characteristics — a practice that also raises eugenic concerns," wrote the researcher, Aaron D. Levine, a professor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in a paper in The Hastings Center Report. <br /><br /><br />Yet most of the ads Levine found in his study contained appearance or eth­nicity requirements for donors. <br /><br />The problem is that there are few oversights to make sure fertility clinics and egg donation agencies obey the guidelines, and there are few serious consequences for those who flout the rules. <br /><br />Levine's study, completed in spring 2006, involved tallying the fees being offered and other characteristics of the various ads for recruiting egg donors. <br /><br />Top dollar<br />He found that only about half of the ads offered $5,000 or less — within the guidelines. Advertisements in the Harvard Crimson, the Daily Princetonian, and the Yale Daily News offered $35,000, and an ad in the Brown Daily Herald offered $50,000 to "an extraordinary egg donor." Many of these high-end fees were promised on behalf of particular couples using agencies to recruit a donor. <br /><br />Other objections to such high fees for egg donors rest on the worry that the money could induce women to overlook the risks or drawbacks of donating, potentially creating a situation in which women are being exploited. Egg donation typically pays much more than sperm donation, but that is thought to be justified because egg donation is a more medically invasive and time-consuming procedure. <br /><br />Some people argue that the generous fees aren't necessarily unethical. <br /><br />"It may lead some women to become egg donors who would not otherwise do so, but that does not mean that they have been exploited, much less unfairly induced," wrote law professor John A. Robertson of the University of Texas in a related commentary in The Hastings Center Report. Robinson is a previous chair of the ASRM ethics committee, and was not involved in Levine's study. <br /><br />He pointed out that banning payments to egg donors would drastically reduce the number of donated eggs available, presumably because the financial compensation is a large part of the motivating factor for egg donors. <br /><br />"The ASRM never says what is wrong with pay­ing women who are healthier, more fertile, have a particu­lar ethnic background, a high IQ, or some other desirable characteristics," Robinson wrote. "The charge of 'commodification'; is easily hurled but not easily justified. After all, we allow individuals to choose their mates and sperm donors on the basis of such characteristics. Why not choose egg donors similarly?" <br /><br />The Hastings Center Report is a publication of The Hastings Center, a nonpartisan bioethics research institution in Garrison, N.Y.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-8556249536588356802010-03-21T05:08:00.000-07:002010-03-21T05:09:29.946-07:00Ethiopian Adoption nightmare for Australians<strong>Australians caught in Ethiopian adoption nightmare</strong><br />By Cassie White<br /><br />Updated Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:03am AEDT <br /><br /> <br />Corruption allegations: A young girl in Ethiopia (AFP: Roberto Schmidt, file photo)<br /><br />The Evidence<br />First warning: In 2005, a Federal Government report detailed concerns raised about Ethiopian adoptions. <br />Second warning: In 2008, Against Child Trafficking wrote to the Government highlighting similar concerns. <br />Supporting Documents<br />The US State Department's advisory on changes to its adoption program. <br />A parent of an adopted child implicates Australia's representative in Ethiopia in the child trafficking racket. <br />Government's Response<br />Attorney General website: What's New in Intercountry Adoption <br />Response from the Attorney-General's Department to questions from ABC News Online <br />Australian families have made serious allegations of corruption within Australia's inter-country adoption program with Ethiopia. <br /><br />The ABC has spoken to several families who claim they have been lied to in the course of their adoption process.<br /><br />They have told heartbreaking stories of their time in Ethiopia - from witnessing their new baby choking on vomit, to a young boy being kept in a bucket to stop him from moving about. One family had to pay a bribe and others found their paperwork falsified with their child's age dramatically altered.<br /><br />The families say the Federal Government has been slow to act and has not fully investigated the allegations. <br /><br />When Jody was holding her baby son in her arms, she was distraught to witness an Ethiopian mother discover she had lost hers forever. <br /><br />"When I was walking [out of the women's centre] a lady screamed and yelled and cried and fell to the ground," she said. <br /><br />"This mother had come back to the women's shelter [where] she'd placed her baby for adoption. She changed her mind and came back to get it within a couple of days - but it was already gone. <br /><br />"That was just heart-wrenching and I felt sick."<br /><br />She added that she thought the process was far too quick to have gone through the proper channels.<br /><br />Last year Foreign Correspondent revealed corruption within US-Ethiopia adoptions, and more families have spoken out as a result. <br /><br />It seems some Australians are not protected from corruption despite it being an Australian Government-run program. <br /><br />The person in charge of the program is Ato Lakew Gebeyehu. ABC News Online made a number of attempts to contact Mr Gebeyehu, but was unable to do so. <br /><br />Mr Gebeyehu is responsible for Koala House, a transition home for children going to be adopted by Australian families. This home, which is part of the Australian government program, is accused of not properly feeding the children and maintaining their health.<br /><br />The office of Attorney-General Robert McClelland says a recent review found issues of concern within the program and is working to restructure the program.<br /><br />ABC News Online has been told by a spokesman for Mr McClelland that Australia will sign a new agreement with Ethiopia, however whether Mr Gebeyehu remains in his position is still to be decided. <br /><br />But the ABC has obtained documents showing the Howard government knew of serious concerns about the program in 2005 and that the Rudd government was warned again in 2008 by Brussels-based human rights organisation Against Child Trafficking.<br /><br /><br />Koala House<br /><br />The families interviewed by the ABC have had their names changed because of fears they may lose their children and concerns that life will be made hard for surviving biological relatives in Ethiopia.<br /><br />Australian parents pay thousands of dollars in fees, donations and aid for the care of their children in Koala House.<br /><br />But all three families say their children were handed to them with a range of problems including severe malnutrition and pneumonia.<br /><br />Sarah, who has adopted three Ethiopian children, believes the money she paid to care for her children never reached them. <br /><br />"In our first adoption we took over about 80 kilos of aid. The majority of that was formula, and because we had a baby we also paid the formula fee for her," she said. <br /><br />"We were also asked to replace all of the formula she would have consumed during her time she was at Koala House ... and it turned out she was actually fed cow's milk and was lactose intolerant. <br /><br />"She was massively malnourished when we got her. She had full-blown pneumonia because she'd been swallowing her own vomit."<br /><br />Sarah's older daughter later explained that she was hardly fed.<br /><br />"She'd get given rice and carrot mixed together as a meal of porridge for breakfast. Except for when the Australian families came ... [they] would put on a big party ... and when that happened, there would be so much food. But when those families went, then it'd be carrot and rice," she said.<br /><br />Jody says it was a similar story when she and her husband were in Ethiopia to collect their son from Koala House.<br /><br />"Our son has attachment issues, but he was never held or cuddled until we got him. He was just picked up to be changed or had a bottle propped up on a pillow," she said. <br /><br />"We were told when we picked him up that they used to sit him in a bucket so he couldn't learn to move around much. He'd worn all the hair off the back of his head from it rubbing against the bucket. <br /><br />"A friend of ours had an older child who says they only get one meal a day, which was concerning because the amount of money that we raised for the centre. I raised thousands and thousands."<br /><br /><br />Program reinstated<br /><br />Earlier this month Mr McClelland announced he will lift a temporary suspension of the adoption program, after concerns of possible breaches of the Hague Convention on inter-country adoption. <br /><br />The convention is in place to ensure the welfare of children is the priority and that international adoptions are used only as a last resort. Australia is a signatory to the convention but Ethiopia is not.<br /><br />It will resume operating on April 6 with some changes made, but it appears Mr Gebeyehu will stay in charge.<br /><br />Against Child Trafficking spokeswoman Roelie Post says Mr Gebeyehu was arrested in Ethiopia and held for 12 days on suspicion of trafficking children to Austria in 2008.<br /><br />Ms Post says her organisation received little response from the Australian Government after alerting it to this and other alleged concerning practices.<br /><br />"The children are not orphans. The paperwork is often faked. Parents are declared dead who are not dead and children are given the wrong ages," she said.<br /><br />"Our organisation sent a letter to the Australian Government with 1,600 pages attached to it with evidence of trafficking in adoptions relating to Australia and India. <br /><br />"Also we alerted the Australian authorities to Ethiopia, especially to the Ethiopian representative whose name was mentioned in a trafficking case in Austria."<br /><br />Ms Post does not accept the Australian Government's explanation that Mr Gebeyehu's arrest was just a case of mistaken identity. She thinks there are serious issues that need to be investigated and that the case was mishandled.<br /><br />"The children come from the same pool, therefore the situation [in Australia] is comparable to adoptions in the US or the Netherlands or any other country."<br /><br />Sarah says she is aware of older adoptive children recognising each other from Ethiopia and while she stops short of calling it child trafficking, she says it is "on the fringes".<br /><br />"I have heard that has happened in Australia, where children have known each other prior to coming under Lakew's care - that's a very big coincidence," she said.<br /><br /><br />Blocked<br /><br />All families interviewed by the ABC claim they were not supplied with paperwork and vital information about their children and were blocked by officials from finding information on biological families. <br /><br />When Anne and her husband adopted their daughter, they say almost all the information about their child's origin was falsified. <br /><br />They were told she was abandoned, but when through their own search they tracked down the biological parents, they discovered this was a lie.<br /><br />"The [birth parents] were both devastated, particularly the father. They were so sad to think that their child would have grown up thinking she had been abandoned by them. <br /><br />"They told us that they could never have done such a thing to their child. They agonised over the decision to relinquish their daughter and they did it legitimately.<br /><br />"What makes us angry is that our daughter was stripped of her history and there seems to be no valid reason for this to have happened. <br /><br />"Our child was given a new name and a new birth date and was passed off as having been abandoned."<br /><br />Sarah adopted two sisters in 2002. She and her husband were told the "orphaned" children were four years old and nine months, with no living relatives. <br /><br />They later found the eldest daughter was not four, but closer to eight. They also discovered the girls had a mother and that the eldest had two brothers whom she was allegedly warned never to mention.<br /><br />"She told us exactly where they were and we located them two days later and the brothers told us at the time that she was eight years old," she said. <br /><br />Jody was also told that her son was abandoned and there was no information about his mother. But years later when her family returned to Ethiopia for their second adoption, they discovered this was not the case. <br /><br />"With a bit of what we call African persuasion, which is $500, we managed to get a photograph, full name and full details of his birth mother," she said.<br /><br />"The whole place revolves around money under the table."The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-62643171374293126222010-03-07T07:00:00.000-08:002010-03-07T07:02:01.309-08:00Are frozen embryos better then fresh?<strong>In IVF, frozen embryos may fare better than fresh</strong><br />Lynne Peeples<br /><br /><br />Health<br /><br />The Finnish study suggests that women who use frozen embryos are somewhat less likely to give birth prematurely, compared to children conceived from an egg that is removed, fertilized and implanted "fresh" within the same cycle.<br /><br />The role of frozen embryos has grown over the last few years, especially in Europe where policies now favor implanting only one embryo at a time to prevent dangerous multiple pregnancies, Dr. Sari Pelkonen, of Oulu University Hospital in Finland and lead author of the study, told Reuters Health by email.<br /><br />This limit leaves extra embryos available for freezing, but few studies have looked carefully at whether frozen embryos are linked to higher rates of premature babies and other complications.<br /><br />For their study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, Pelkonen and her colleagues studied data from nearly 2,300 children conceived with frozen embryos, more than 4,100 born after fresh embryos were used, and 32,000 pregnancies that did not require IVF or other fertility treatments.<br /><br />Overall, 258, or about one in 11, of the babies from the fresh embryo transfer group were born prematurely, compared to 120, or about one in 16, in the frozen embryo transfer group.<br /><br />Frozen embryos were also less likely to be linked to low birth weight and being small for the length of the pregnancy.<br /><br />Similar differences were seen between the fresh and frozen embryos in regards to low birth weight-180 (6 percent) versus 76 (4.2 percent)-and being small for the length of the pregnancy-91 (3.1 percent) versus 28 (1.5 percent).<br /><br />Those relationships held after the researchers took various factors such as the mother's age and socioeconomic status into account.<br /><br />The only potential negative effect of being born from frozen embryos was that on average, the birth weight of children born from frozen embryos was 134 grams (0.3 pounds) greater than a baby born from a fresh embryo. Although that increased weight is unlikely to lead to any complications, having much larger babies can increase the risk of requiring a cesarean section, for example.<br /><br />When researchers compared frozen embryo outcomes to those from natural conceptions, they found more premature births among the frozen embryos. However, there were no significant differences in fetal or infant mortality among any of the groups.<br /><br />"There's a sense people have that frozen aren't as good-that freezing and thawing could harm the embryos. This quiets those concerns," Dr. Helen Kim, Director of the In Vitro Fertilization Program at The University of Chicago, told Reuters in a phone interview.<br /><br />Why frozen embryos result in more favorable outcomes is still unclear. The freezing and thawing process could filter out the "weak" embryos, leaving only the good quality ones, Dr. Gordon Baker, of the University of Melbourne and The Royal Women's Hospital in Australia, told Reuters Health in an email.<br /><br />Frozen embryo transfer also allows doctors to time a woman's hormone cycles to more closely mimic natural conception, according to Baker. High estrogen levels and lingering stress from the egg collection procedure performed just a few days before IVF could impair implantation, as well as increase the risk of an unhealthy birth.<br /><br />Considering effectiveness, price and safety, Pelkonen suggested that the best IVF option might be transferring one or two fresh embryos, followed by freezing the rest for future implantation-which could be done years later.<br /><br />The average cost of a fresh in vitro fertilization cycle in the U.S. is $12,400, although the cost varies significantly among clinics. Freezing embryos for later use is extra. However, these additional services are relatively inexpensive, notes Baker, at less than one third the cost of a fresh cycle.<br /><br />Kim agreed. "I always recommend that my patients freeze," she said. "It kills me to throw away perfectly good embryos."<br /><br />However, a recent study of what happened to frozen embryos at one fertility clinic found that many women who successfully have a baby using donated eggs do not try to achieve a second pregnancy with the excess embryos they've chosen to store. (See Reuters Health report, February 12, 2010.)The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-7067237284771852132010-02-28T16:38:00.000-08:002010-02-28T16:41:15.056-08:00Woman gives birth to Two children after ovarian transplants<strong>LONDON (Reuters) - A woman has given birth to two children after her fertility was restored using transplants of ovarian tissue, the first time the complex treatment has produced two babies from separate pregnancies.</strong><br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61N2LD20100224?rpc=64<br /><br />Science | Health | COP15<br /><br />Claus Yding Andersen, the Danish doctor who treated the woman, said the case showed how this method of storing ovarian tissue was a valid way of preserving fertility and should encourage the technique to be used more in girls and young women facing treatment that may damage their ovaries.<br /><br />"This is the first time in the world that a woman has had two children from separate pregnancies as a result of transplanting frozen and thawed ovarian tissue," said Andersen, who reported the case in the Human Reproduction medical journal.<br /><br />Andersen's patient, Danish woman Stinne Holm Bergholdt, had ovarian tissue removed and frozen during treatment for cancer, and then restored once she was cured.<br /><br />She gave birth to a girl in February 2007 after receiving fertility treatment. She then conceived naturally and gave birth to another girl in September 2008.<br /><br />Nine children have been born worldwide as a result of transplanting frozen and thawed ovarian tissue. Three (including Bergholdt's two) were born in Denmark after treatment carried out by Andersen, who is Professor of Human Reproductive Physiology at the University Hospital of Copenhagen.<br /><br />Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services in central England and Pete Braude, head of women's health at King's College London, both said the key to the success of this kind of treatment was the woman's age.<br /><br />"The fact that it's possible to get many more eggs from frozen strips of ovarian cortex ... means that it may well be a better option for young cancer patients," Lockwood told Reuters.<br /><br />Braude said the fact that Bergholdt was 27 when her treatment began had boosted her chances. "It worked because there was a large store of eggs, and as you get older that store goes down," he said. "If she had been 35 or 36, the likelihood of this succeeding would have been much less."<br /><br />Bergholdt, from Odense, was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma when she was 27 in 2004. Before she began chemotherapy, part of her right ovary was removed and frozen.<br /><br />Her cancer treatment succeeded but, as expected, also caused a menopause. In 2005, after six strips of ovarian tissue were transplanted onto what remained of her right ovary, it began to function again.<br /><br />In January 2008 she returned to Andersen's clinic for more fertility treatment to try to conceive again. But a test showed she was already pregnant with her second child.<br /><br />"This showed that the original transplanted ovarian strips had continued to work for more than four years," Andersen said. "It is an amazing fact that these ovarian strips have been working for so long and it provides information on how powerful this technique can be."<br /><br />Bergholdt, 32, said she had not decided whether to have more children. "The girls are still so small and need a lot of attention, but maybe in a couple of years we might think about it," she said.<br /><br />(Editing by Janet Lawrence)<br /><br />ScienceHealthCOP15The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206634351550971278.post-38412930641025887122008-10-27T19:26:00.000-07:002008-10-27T19:27:28.715-07:00Fertility Law passed in the UK<strong>Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill passed</strong><br />23 October 2008<br /><br /><br /><br />The House of Commons last night voted to pass the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill by 355 votes to 129. The Bill represents the first major facelift of fertility law in eighteen years, and has provoked a saga of headline-grabbing controversies during its passage through Parliament – from lesbian IVF rights, to donor symbols on birth certificates, to animal-human hybrid embryo research. <br /><br />Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble of solicitors Lester Aldridge LLP welcomes the Bill and says it will introduce important new rights for fertility patients. Natalie (nominated by gay rights organisation Stonewall as Hero of the Year 2008) has been a vocal supporter of the new rights for gay and lesbian parents.<br /><br />“The surrogacy rules will be widened” Natalie explains. “Currently only married couples can apply for a parental order (the legal mechanism for reassigning parenthood from the surrogate to the intended parents after the birth), but the law will be extended to allow applications from unmarried and gay couples as well. The Bill will also allow lesbian couples conceiving by donor insemination to be named on the birth certificate and to be full and equal parents from the moment of conception. Same sex couples will get essentially the same treatment as heterosexual couples who conceive using sperm donors or surrogates, ensuring that children born to same sex couples have the protection of having two legal parents rather than one.<br /><br />“The Bill will also finally remove the obligation of clinics to consider the ‘need for a father’ before offering fertility treatment (instead considering the child’s ‘need for supportive parenting’) and this makes it absolutely clear that single and lesbian women should not be excluded from treatment.”<br /><br />Natalie is keen to emphasise the other, less controversial and less publicised, changes which will be important in practice for fertility patients.<br /><br />“Continuing the trend of increasing rights to information about donor conception, there are also several changes being made to the donor conception rules” she explains. “Donor-conceived children will, once they reach the age of 18, have a new right to be put in touch with any donor-conceived half siblings. They will also be able to obtain more information about donors at 16 rather than 18. Donors, too, are getting new rights, and will in the future be able to find out whether their donation resulted in any children being born.<br /><br />“The rules on embryo storage are also changing, allowing storage for ten rather than five years. Prompted by the story of Natalie Evans (the woman who battled the law and was denied the right to use her embryos without her former partner’s consent), there will also be a new 12 month ‘cooling off’ period to give a partner who withdraws consent to embryo storage the opportunity to change his/ her mind before embryos are irrecoverably destroyed.<br /><br />There are still some issues which have not been fully addressed, though, says Natalie.<br /><br />“The extended storage regulations – which allow storage of embryos for longer than ten years in certain circumstances – will only be reviewed now the Bill has gone through, and there are some important issues to be discussed here, including whether couples contemplating surrogacy should be able to preserve their right to have their own genetic child indefinitely in the same way as other couples currently can.<br /><br />“The issue of surrogacy generally also needs to be addressed more thoroughly. The existing law was designed to help patients conceiving with donors and in most surrogacy cases is complex and difficult. The government mentioned while the Bill was in committee that this was an issue they wanted to look at separately, and I hope they will do so as soon as possible.”<br /><br />Overall, though, Natalie welcomes the passage of the Bill. “The new law will introduce important new rights for fertility patients, particularly same sex couples, and it represents a sensible updating of the existing law.”<br /><br />The new law, after final ratification by the House of Lords and royal assent, is expected to come into effect in October 2009.The National Adoption and Surrogacy Centerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108449419837492602noreply@blogger.com7